[playtest] Dried algae armor

[Q_x]

Equipment
Dried algae armor adds 2 to defense of a creature.
Cost: 1

[TorbenBeta]

Well, I think it's good enough to be accepted.

[pennomi]

Sounds good to me. Question, though. Can a player put multiple equipments of the same name on a creature? I'm just envisioning layers and layers of Algae Armor on one unit. Not necessarily a bad thing for gameplay, but it just requires a little bit more suspension of disbelief.

[snowdrop]

Sounds good to me. Question, though. Can a player put multiple equipments of the same name on a creature? I'm just envisioning layers and layers of Algae Armor on one unit. Not necessarily a bad thing for gameplay, but it just requires a little bit more suspension of disbelief.

A player can play identical Equipment cards on one and the same unit. However, the equipment rules on the ORC tell us that Equipment that shares an identical subtype does not stack.

So, if this card's cardtype field reads: "Equipment - Armor" then, since two copies of the same card is played, both would have the subtype "Armor". If so, then then there is little (but some) point in playing several copies of this card on a creature.

However, the suggested card only has "Equipment" as cardtype. That's a supertype, and not a subtype. If so, it would stack perfectly fine.

[pennomi]

If this card's cardtype field reads: "Equipment - Armor" then, since two copies of the same card is played, both would have the subtype "Armor". If so, then then there is little (but some) point in playing several copies of this card on a creature.

However, the suggested card only has "Equipment" as cardtype. That's a supertype, and not a subtype. If so, it would stack perfectly fine.

Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping the rule would be something like that .

Do you think this card would be better as subtype: armor? I'm not sure it should, it kind of makes sense (despite my sarcastic remark earlier) to have layers of Dried Algae Armor...

[TorbenBeta]

Do you think this card would be better as subtype: armor? I'm not sure it should, it kind of makes sense (despite my sarcastic remark earlier) to have layers of Dried Algae Armor...

But if it would stack infinitely then you could boast a creatures armour with +8 (in theory), and let's not forget other armours which would add more defence to a creature.
I would propose something like that instead:

Code: Select all

Equipment, armor
Dried algae armor adds 2 to defense of a creature. Algae armour stacks with itself up to 2 times.
Cost: 1

It stacks with itself now but I limited it to 2 because +4 permanent defence is enough, it's open do discussion.
Torben

[Ravenchild]

I don't see why there should be a stacking-limit. You still need to pay for each armor. And in most situations it's probably a better strategy to have several units of increased strength than one extremely strong unit.

[pennomi]

I don't see why there should be a stacking-limit. You still need to pay for each armor. And in most situations it's probably a better strategy to have several units of increased strength than one extremely strong unit.

I agree, since you pay for it, you might as well get it. Besides, it's always kind of depressing when a card limits itself in a way that a normal card shouldn't be limited.

Besides, if you define it as "Equipment - Armor" like you did, it wouldn't be able to stack at all, since any creature may have only one of each subtype of equipment.

[TorbenBeta]

But then you have a card with +8 defence in theory if it does stack with itself unlimited. And I wrote the stacks-with-itself-rule to overwrite the armour restriction.

[Ravenchild]

Big units (and powerful cards in general) are fun. So I don't think that a unit with +8 defense is a bad thing as long as it's not too easy to get many of these.

Powerful cards make the late game more interesting.

And if there's a limit of 4 identical cards in a deck, the probability that you draw all 4 algae armors is very unlikely.